In Monday's Washington Post, it became clear which Super Bowl ad the liberal Posties dislike the most: one from the athletic apparel (and now shoe) makers at Under Armour. They probably shudder at the brand name. The Post sports section ran snippets of its columnist (and radio and TV personality) Tony Kornheiser live-blogging during the big game: "I think I've seen the Under Armour ad before or one very much like it. It doesn't do much for me. It's too militaristic."
But Post TV critic Tom Shales really hated it, and dropped the political F-word on it: "Among the most overproduced spots was one featuring musclebound models in the 'American Gladiator' mode wearing tight spandex athletic garb from Underarmour.com. A huge mob surging through the streets seemed stolen from the underrated futuristic thriller 'V for Vendetta.' It was hard to tell, though, who were the fascist oppressors and who were the liberated hordes."
Perhaps, Mr. Shales, that's because they're selling a new running shoe, not world domination. Hitler and Mussolini wouldn't have gotten very far taking over Europe by beating people with sneakers. The fascist analogy is also a clunker when dealing with black athletes, since Hitler wasn't exactly fond of Jesse Owens.
Business Week saw a preview and thought "Communist rally."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Under Armor
February 4, 2008 - 07:49 ET by ricklailI thought it portrayed thugs.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
Hey, didn't ANYONE elase
February 4, 2008 - 10:16 ET by BDHey, didn't ANYONE else get the fact that it was a replaying of the opening of the classic movie "The Warriors".
They had gangs wearing differing colors moving through the streets to the meeting where the actor Roger Hill protraying the Gang Lord "Cyrus" gives them the word that they are taking over (For Roger the Shrubber "Can you dig it, Brothers" in the opening monologue.
I thought they could have played it up a bit more, but hell, it was not terribly produced.
BD - I thought of Warriors also
February 4, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Dee BunkI love that movie and I thought the commercial was fine. I like the commercials that do take offs from films. I liked the Godfather one also. They are certainly better than the average commercial.
Excellent
February 4, 2008 - 22:13 ET by Founding_FatherI thought the exact same thing....
Excellent
February 4, 2008 - 22:13 ET by Founding_FatherI thought the exact same thing....
The message, like beauty,
February 4, 2008 - 09:13 ET by motherbeltThe message, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
Didn't see the ad; I'm just going by the description here. Don't even have to see it. My guess is, because liberals apply politics to everything, from TV ads to the Academy and Grammy Awards, they just assume that every ad, everywhere, has some kind of political message.
Wow some people have TOO
February 4, 2008 - 08:47 ET by taterWow some people have TOO much time on their hands. I just thought it was a really loud commerical.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
It just seemed too over the
February 4, 2008 - 09:34 ET by wiwfIt just seemed too over the top. I didn't like it, but I didn't think it was fascistic! At the end though I thought it was a lot like the movie 300.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Really?
February 4, 2008 - 09:47 ET by SgtCheeseNOLSYou guys can Youtube it...
Type in "Underarmor Super Bowl" and it should pop up.
I didn't see anything politically wrong. I just thought they were going for a revolution style commercial without any political innuendo. Maybe there is more to the story than I know...
USCG
I just watched it...you
February 4, 2008 - 10:37 ET by motherbeltI just watched it...you have to really stretch to get a political message out of that commercial. I agree that they were just going for sort of a revolution against the old technology (with a "1984" kind of futuristic look)...the old sneakers are gone...the future is Under Armor.
I was right before...the message is in the eye of the beholder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch
February 4, 2008 - 10:19 ET by stratmanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg_O-TQ7slI
Bad commercial. Very bad.
Looked like a bunch of thugs and criminals, especially Ray Lewis, who should be imprisoned for his role in a murder. I would not purchase the product after seeing this commercial.
Don't get the fascism angle, just a bunch of steroid crazed punks led by a pumped up son of Idi Amin Dada.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
I didn't think it was that
February 4, 2008 - 10:02 ET by balboaI didn't think it was that great a commercial, but...fascist? Yeesh.
The only ad I liked was the
February 4, 2008 - 10:11 ET by chessplayerThe only ad I liked was the one with a caveman trying to open a bottle of beer with a rock. After the rock smashes the bottle into a million pieces, the caveman says: "bottle opener suck."
None at all
February 4, 2008 - 10:19 ET by BeanManIt is my humble opinion that none of the commercials were of the quality they used to be say five or more years ago. Yes, the caveman bottle opener was silly and the wine and cheese party was okay but in general they all thought they were cuter than they actually were.
Who gives two cents about Clydesdale horses pulling a beer wagon and the girl dancing with lizards booring!
Give me the old "tastes great - less filling" miller light or geesh, at this point, i'd take "Bud Bowl XLII".
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
I missed the caveman - my favorite was the Night at Roxbury one
February 4, 2008 - 10:33 ET by Dee Bunkfor Pepsi Max. That was a great idea.
That was my favorite
February 4, 2008 - 10:43 ET by taterThat was my favorite too...although I wish it was Will Ferrell and Chris Kattan at the end instead of just Chris.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
tater - agreed - but I 'm sure Ferrell was too expensive
February 4, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Dee Bunktater - agreed - but I 'm sure Ferrell was too expensive
It's too militaristic
February 4, 2008 - 10:48 ET by landsharkWell, I for one, think that the game itself was too militaristic. What with all the competitiveness and each team trying to defeat the other using violent tactics, brute force, and physical intimidation. It's so sad that teams can't talk and come to an understanding based on mutual respect and togetherness. No blood for trophies!
I'm actually starting to make myself sick.
Carville & Frist
February 4, 2008 - 11:42 ET by the_red_stateI enjoyed the one with Cottonmouth Carville and Senator Frist...pure fantasy putting ol' Cottonmouth into a human light.
See I thought that was a
February 4, 2008 - 12:00 ET by balboaSee I thought that was a nice one, too, despite disliking Frist. It was a nice sentiment.
Red state - I liked that one too. I wish it would have been
February 4, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Dee Bunksomeone other than Carville though.
Wow! There was a Super Bowl commercial featuring Benito
February 4, 2008 - 20:58 ET by R D HelmWow! There was a Super Bowl commercial featuring Benito Mussolini and Broom Hilda?
Sheesh, I missed another one!
Must have aired while I was busy re-filling my salsa bowl, obtaining yet another adult beverage, making sure the coals burning down in the grills were not setting the backyard on fire, doing the obligatory plumbing inspection, making a mad dash to the store during half time for more tortilla chips and ice, taking the dog out for......
No wonder I am so tired today!
And who left half a beer in my mailbox?
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe